[Fedora-packaging] code vs. content
nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
Sat Nov 21 11:26:35 UTC 2009
Le samedi 21 novembre 2009 à 11:43 +0100, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
> On 11/21/2009 10:42 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le samedi 21 novembre 2009 à 04:31 +0100, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
> > Well I don't, unless you decide to evaluate the "purpose" of every
> > binary in Fedora. The "purpose" of "content" is that someone found it
> > useful enough to jump through the hoops of Fedora packager sponsorship
> > and Fedora review.
> You will always find somebody who finds any arbitrary content useful for
> something, ...
So what? You will always find somebody who finds any arbitrary binary
> > When you see the stuff that ends in the repo nowadays I don't see why
> > "non-code" packagers should be guettoized just because they're not
> > dealing with exalted code such as an nth broken music player, MUA,
> > <insert random crap we package here>.
> We are talking about _mere content_ packages, here, ie. strictly
> optional "eye/ear" candy packages, things like background package of
> "your favorite city", "your child", "your pet", "your car/house/boat", ...
As opposed to _mere binary_ packages, ie strictly optional
ego-gratification badly written binaries, things like yet another MUA,
yet another music player, yet another id3 editor, wanda the fish or
weyes, another cpu load viewer applet, etc?
Get of your ivory tower, there is nothing in "content" that makes it
magically less suitable than "code" for Fedora purposes (or the reverse)
One of the "mere content" examples given in this thread, project
Gutemberg, would be massively more useful than a lot of the "code" in
Fedora today (if packaged properly)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
More information about the Fedora-packaging